a vindictive and self-serving fishing expedition
I always thought the Trump’s mouth belonged on a fish.
23 Likes
Trump wrote. “When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded politically motivated Witch Hunt
I think that means you got a problem with your orbit. Put it in your obit.
17 Likes
He refuses to give them the satisfaction of learning the full and absolute - totally innocent, absolutely perfect - truth.
21 Likes
The Manhattan prosecutor should reconsider putting that criminal case on hold (hopefully, it’s quietly moving forward and will get louder soon).
23 Likes
You forgot to add that is a direct quote from Herr Trump (and it was about mobsters).
4 Likes
There is no “Motion to Compel” once someone invokes the 5th. Her previous motions and litigation to the nth degree were, essentially, to get Trump to plead the 5th and forfeit any defense of the civil claims at trial. Unlike in criminal cases, when someone takes the 5th in a civil case, there is a presumption that their answer would hurt them and, therefore, a judge or jury can presume that the facts align against the defendant.
49 Likes
Better? 
43 Likes
Not once in her career!
6 Likes
ETA Oops, I now see @rptwiz is saying the same thing.
IANAL but IIRC invoking your 5A rights in a criminal trial can’t be used against you. However, in civil litigation all bets are off. And this is civil litigation. That said, it seems that invoking the 5th may well work against him in the long run.
Any TPM lawyers want to comment?
21 Likes
You gotti that right!
19 Likes
Book 'im, Danno.
8 Likes
No, but Bill Clinton probably should have.
44 Likes
Shorter Trump: “Harrrrrumph!”
3 Likes
“Where’s my Roy Cohn Bruce Cutler?”
4 Likes
So Tramp admits that he may be guilty of breaking laws.
How unsurprising!
11 Likes
Taking the Fifth in a Civil Context - Lane Powell PC.
“Once a witness in a civil suit has invoked his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the trier of fact is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the witness’s refusal to testify.” Chaffee v. Keller Rohrback LLP, 200 Wash.App. 66, 83-84 (2017) (citing King v. Olympic Pipeline Co., 104 Wash.App. 338, 355-56 (2000) and Ikeda v. Curtis , 43 Wash.2d 449, 261 P.2d 684 (1953)).
42 Likes
Arright. I appreciate the correction. Genuinely. Nobody, including me, likes being wrong, but I’d rather someone fix my error than have my words unintentionally lead others astray.
13 Likes
It was a PERFECT deposition!
People are saying it was the Best deposition they’ve ever seen!!
Probably the best deposition in history!!!
16 Likes
“Trump’s mouth belonged on a fish”
Ling lips
6 Likes
I wouldn’t go that far. What happens is the judge will give the jury a simple instruction to the effect that they can infer the witness’s refusal to testify was because the testimony would have been unfavorable to him. And then the state will hammer the shit out of Fat Donnie for refusing to answer questions.
Practically speaking, it’s pretty close to an admission that everything the state says is true, because if the defendant doesn’t go under oath to contest it, the jury is going to perceive it as being unrebutted.
61 Likes